Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hello_hellno t1_j9yflew wrote

Reply to comment by a_common_spring in TIL about Janet Parker, the last person to die of smallpox in 1978. She worked above one of the last labs in its last months of permission to study the virus. The day Janet's viral strain was confirmed, Henry Bedson, the doctor in charge of the lab, took his own life. by w0mpum

If you're the boss, you assume responsibility with the benefits. If you're underfunded and find it a dangerous environment- you either leave or cut into areas not related to safety to ensure safety is top priority over any results. No matter the budget- the big boss is always responsible for workers safety, that's the privilege and downside of that salary.

There is no excusable scenario. Not saying he deserved to die- absolutely not- no one does. But he seemed much more in tune with his responsibility as a boss than you see. I've run several enterprises and also not sure I could live with myself if anyone died due to the negligence of my business- whether staff/customer/passerby. It doesn't matter, I'm paid to make things run in a safe and responsible environment and the only person keeping me accountable is karma/life. If I slack or fuck up- I'm not getting suspended- I'm criminally responsible and that's partly why I'm paid what i am paid.

"Great power Comes with great responsibility "

3

scootscooterson t1_j9yl947 wrote

Sorry you’re definitely not criminally liable for everything that happens when you’re a boss? Also assuming infinite responsibility with something outside of your control is both honorable and misguided. I don’t think it’s what anyone wants in a leader.

4

hello_hellno t1_ja1y6o5 wrote

Yeah I don't think I worded that quite right- more that as the boss you assume responsibility for any failings within your sphere of influence- which does include behavior of employees, safety issues etc.

But I see what you mean in my wording, there can Def be things outside your control no matter what- which is why these things are deeply investigated by governing bodies. But any finding that finds a failure in procedures etc is the responsibility of the boss.

Like if lightning strikes someone at an outdoor festival it shouldn't be blamed of the organizer of that festival. But if there's multiple overdoses, criminal acts etc- then yeah- that's within their sphere of influence from a procedural standpoint, and they need to be held accountable for failure to put safety over profits.

Don't know if that makes more sense on my viewpoint, but thanks for correcting me. I do see how I worded that wrong originally, and I appreciated that being pointed out to me

1

scootscooterson t1_ja28shc wrote

For sure! Nobody wants their friend to take responsibility for a situation where they did everything they could. It’s somehow right and wrong at the same time in a way I think you understand.

2